A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are these images imaginary, peacegirl?

Of course not, but to say that these images date back to the beginning of time is a theory, although you can believe what you want. I think people are here to see how long I can hold out, which is why I'm not going to continue the conversation. It's all about the lulz.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you haven't said it is logical. For the last couple of days you've been trying to tell us it doesn't make any sense. And if your account has no possible explanation for where the light at the retina came from or how it got there, then that account is obviously wrong.

Fine, so let's end this. I'm ready for a change of topic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you read the book you will find she really doesn't have much of a choice. If her ideas about free will are even slightly tempered, the whole teetering edifice comes crashing down: this is a text-book example of an entire system being built on extremely narrow foundations.

Narrow foundations? You are so off the beaten track, it laughable.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We already offered an explanation that allows sight to be normal while not conflicting with the book as she shared it. However, she herself has intimated that this would have consequences for the the ideas about not-reincarnation as described in the part of the book that is missing from my version.

What are you gibbering about? Consequences about not-reincarnation?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The entire cloud-castle is so lacking in robustness that smallest change would bring the whole thing crashing down, and then where is she? No eternally happy afterlife, no Brave New World, ten years wasted, and stacks and stacks of what has now suddenly become the worlds most expensive toiletpaper in stead of the Bible, Part 2.

Who brought up afterlife? This is not a Brave New World, the kind of world Huxley wrote about. Do you actually think the Golden Age of man is going to resemble Huxley's new world order in any way, shape, or form?

Brave New World is a benevolent dictatorship: a static, efficient, totalitarian welfare-state. There is no war, poverty or crime. Society is stratified by genetically-predestined caste.

Aldous Huxley : Brave New World

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You're almost as unintentionally funny as your father. Did you receive your diploma from kindergarten, or are you still working on the requirements of eating cookies and taking a noon nap?

No playground privileges for you. And definitely no cookies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Like a broken record. Dishonest, empty-headed, pathetic.

Now you have to stand in the corner for one hour, or write 100 times Peacegirl is honest, and full of wisdom.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are conflating the discussion of color with the discussion of collecting light from far away to create an image as the Hubble does. Your statement about half a face had nothing to do with color. So, you are still gibbering.

I am not conflating anything. We were talking about capturing light to form images of a previous time. This was not related to color, so why are you accusing me of this?

Post #: 28375

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because optics works with travelling photons: if the same mechanism works in reverse, something needs to travel out of the eyes.

You came up with the idea that it works in reverse, not me...

No, I've already explained this. If we can see the object, the light will be at the retina. I also said that light travels, but the pattern does not travel beyond the point of resolution. Nothing gets shot out of the eyes. You're purposely making this sound like a horror movie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nature is not redundant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It still sounds very haphazard to me, but of course not to you since you've got an answer for everything

Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nature is well-designed. It is not haphazard.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Er...what? Sorry peacegirl, but you don't get to dictate how nature is. The universe doesn't care if you find it strange or haphazard, or random or daft, or immoral.

added to previous post:

This is not about what I get to dictate.

Nonlinear processes are ubiquitous. They are processes of emergent order and complexity, of how structure arises from the interaction of many independent units. These processes recur at every level, from morphology to behavior. At every level of science (including the brain and life) the spontaneous emergence of order, or self-organization of complex systems, is a common theme.

The Nature of Consciousness: Consciousness, Life and Meaning

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once I work out a marketing plan, I won't have time to come here.

But we both know you'll never do that. You'll just continue submitting and resubmitting the book, as you've been doing for the past ten years.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing shoots out Spacemonkey. This is beginning to sound like a bad science fiction movie.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain.

LOL. I've highlighted the problematic parts for you.

If efferent means to be conveyed outwards, and vision is an efferent experience, then what is conveyed outwards in efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But we both know you'll never do that. You'll just continue submitting and resubmitting the book, as you've been doing for that past ten years.

Wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LOL. I've highlighted the problematic parts for you.

If efferent means to be conveyed outwards, and vision is an efferent experience, then what is conveyed outwards in efferent vision?

I have no problem with saying "conveyed outward", but it's nuts to say something shoots out of the eyes!!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not violate physics, nor does it mean that photons have teleported from one point to another. No matter how you reason this out, it's going to seem contradictory as long as your premise begins with the idea that light bounces and travels with the pattern before it strikes another object (which involves time) instead of trying to understand that the pattern reveals the object (which does not involve time). Does this sound like a broken record to you? I know you will continue to ask me what time was the photon at the sun, and what time was it at the eye? You keep going back to the afferent account because you are thinking in terms of traveling photons. Remember, light travels, but in the efferent account, light brings no pattern to the eye through space/time; it reveals what's out there in real time if we're in optical range of that object.

No, Peacegirl. I am not beginning with any premise about traveling photons or light bouncing and traveling with a pattern. You are yet again merely fabricating lies and excuses to avoid addressing the problem. So are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously? Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no problem with saying "conveyed outward", but nothing shoots out of the eyes!!

So then what is it that is "conveyed outwards" in your allegedly efferent account?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong.

Nope. How many times have you told us you won't be resubmitting again, only to go right ahead and resubmit again? How long have you been telling us about the need to develop a marketing plan and what have you actually done about it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The space between an object and the eye in the efferent account is the same regardless of how far away the object is.

That's a contradiction, Peacegirl. The distance between eye and object cannot be the same even when it's different.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one was ever disputing that point, so why are you making it? The point you took issue with was the idea that if the only light hitting a red object lacks red photons due to them being absorbed by a previous object then we won't see the second object as red. Obviously this effect will only be observed when there are not other red photons in the daylight streaming directly at the red object in addition to the light lacking the red photons.

In this case, yes. The answers we are giving you are the correct ones, as you are welcome to verify for yourself.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fine, so let's end this. I'm ready for a change of topic.

No. I want you to stop lying, evading, and constantly trying to change the subject, and for once actually try honestly and directly facing up to this problem with your claim. Is that too much to ask?

Where did the light which you say is instantly at the retina come from, and how did it get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I've already explained this. If we can see the object, the light will be at the retina.

Where did this light come from, and how did it get there?

This is what you have not explained.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We know what causes perspective in optics. So what causes it in your idea? It cannot be the same thing, or work the same way, unless you want to say that sight is efferent AND afferent.

Sight is æfferent. You heard it here first.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how we got here, or how this disproves Lessans' claims, but it's interesting, especially since public safety is one of the things I research.

In proportion to what we spend for other preventive measures, however, we do not deal so generously with a highly important life-saving agency - street and highway lighting. We invest millions in better reads, which are used to an increasing extent at night. The traffic over them is enormous; but, unfortunately, so is the toll of causalities that attends this use. Rural night traffic accidents inflict and estimated money damage in this country of $400,000,000 a year. Worse than that, this rural night traffic alone results in about 6000 fatal accidents and 160,000 non-fatal accidents annually. Traffic accidents take a terrible toll each year. During the 18 months we were engaged in the World War, 50,510 members of the A.E.F. were killed in action or died of wounds, and 182,674 were wounded. In the 18 months ending December 31, 1931, 53,650 persons were killed and 1,576,840 were injured in traffic accidents in our city streets and on our rural highways.

It is not sufficient to think about these figures; we should do something about them. And we can. We can install adequate lighting for about 10 per cent of the cost of an improved highway; and the annual cost of operating such a lighting system is approximately 5 per cent of the cost of the improved highway.

Statistics show that for every thousand dollars of lighting cost, there is an economic saving of more than two thousand dollars by prevention of deaths and accidents.

Engineers have worked successfully on this problem. We have suitable equipment to light highways adequately. One of the latest lighting units for this purpose is the new sodium-vapor lamp described in this publication. Its soft, golden-orange glow, its lack of glare, adapt it admirable to give maximum comfort and safety in driving.

The need for adequate highway lighting is obvious. The physical means of obtaining it are available. Let's unite in an effort to combat a menace to public comfort and safety that looms greater year by year.

I can offer no better summary than that given by Osborne S. Mitchell, Editor, Electrical News and Engineering:

1. To the nation, it would mean greatly improved transportation facilities at little extra cost. In addition, it would mean a great saving in life and a large saving in what is now a direct economic loss amounting to millions of dollars annually.
2. To the farmer, where there are no existing distribution lines, it would mean electrification with all its increased efficiency on the farm.
3. To the motorist, it would mean fewer accidents and less nervous tension.
4. To the central station, it would mean lower overhead on rural lines.
5. To the states, it would mean fewer crimes and less policing, and greatly increased tourist traffic.
6. To the electrical industry, it would bring a large potential rural market.

I think this is a really great idea. Why we could even have electricity out here where I live in rural Iowa. Then I could have a computer and stuff. What do you think we should call this program? I think something like rural electrification would be a really cool name.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are able to see the hemisphere of the moon that is facing us due to light.

Why are we only able to see the side of the moon that is facing us. If the moon is large enough, bright enough and close enough, and those are the only conditions necessary for sight, why can't we see the whole moon?